All one needs to do is study Peter Singer, the eminent ethics professor at Princeton University. He is one of the few who have actually taken atheism to some of its uncomfortable conclusions (I think Nietzsche also did this in the 19th century). Check out this post over at GeoChristian to find out what Singer believes. It’s quite eye-opening.
Which States In the U.S. Are Most Religious?
OK, Vermont, what gives? Last place? I don’t recall the characters on Newhart being anti-religious… Check out this poll for some interesting data.
Does a 4.5 Billion Year Old Earth Prove Evolution is True?
Post Author: Bill Pratt
No, even though I often hear Christians talk as if it does. Many believe that if you interpret the “days” in Genesis to be long periods of time and you accept the current scientific consensus that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, then you are “siding” with evolution.
The ironic thing is that when scientific evidence started showing that the universe is only billions of years old and not infinite, some bemoaned the fact that there just wasn’t enough time for the Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection to work. They had been assuming a practically infinite amount of time. Billions of years was not a boon to evolution; it was a serious problem!
In fact, one of the greatest challenges for Darwinian evolution in the fossil record is the Cambrian explosion, where over 95% of known animal phyla suddenly appeared over a period of 5 to 10 million years. According to the fossil record, evolution had to work in an extremely short period of time for these animal phyla to appear, so the situation is even worse than billions of years – they have to deal with only millions of years!
Bottom line: whether it is thousands of years, millions of years, or billions of years, it doesn’t matter. The random process of Darwinian evolution needs far more time to manufacture the biological complexity and diversity we see on earth. Whether evolution is true or not has little to do with the age of the earth being 4.5 billion years.
When thinking about creation, learn to decouple evolution from the age of the earth. They are two completely separate issues that need not be considered together. It absolutely does not follow that a 4.5 billion year old earth or 13.8 billion year old universe lead inexorably to the truth of Darwinian evolution.
What is the Meaning of the Word “Day” in Genesis? Part 5
Post Author: Bill Pratt
In this series of posts, we are looking at the meaning of the Hebrew word yom as it is used in the first chapter of Genesis. Does yom refer to a 24-hour day or to a long period of time?
Today we will review two final arguments from young earth creationists who assert that the 24-hour “day” is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1. Again, we will use material from Norman Geisler’s systematic theology, volume 2.
First, young earth creationists accuse old earth creationists of actively supporting Darwinian evolution by interpreting long periods of time in Genesis.
It is well known that the theory of evolution (or common ancestry) depends on very long periods of time for life to develop from a one-celled animal to human beings. Without these long periods of time, evolution would not be possible. Thus, it is argued by young-earthers that granting long periods of time is an accommodation to evolution.
This is an important argument that persuades many Christians, so how would old earth creationists respond?
In response to this charge, it must be observed that allowing for long periods of time for the development of life came long before the idea of evolution. Augustine (354–430), for one, held to long periods of time for the development of life (CG, 11.6). Also, even in modern times, scientists had concluded that long periods of time were involved before Darwin wrote in 1859. Furthermore, long periods of time do not help evolution, since without intelligent intervention, more time does not produce the specified complexity involved in life. Natural laws randomize, not specify. For example, dropping red, white, and blue bags of confetti from a plane at 1,000 feet in the air will never produce an American flag on the ground. Giving it more time to fall by dropping it at 10,000 feet will diffuse it even more.
The truth is that old earth creationists challenge the ideas of Darwinian evolution just as much as young earth creationists. Neither group believes that evolution, alone, can explain how all of the diverse plant and animal species arrived on earth. Both sides believe that evolution can explain limited change within species, but above the species level the evidence thins out rapidly.
Here is one final argument for the 24-hour “day” view.
Mark 10:6 affirms that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning. According to this text, “At the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’” If God created humankind at the beginning of Creation, then they were not created at the end of millions of years, as the old-earth view contends.
The response is fairly straightforward:
First, Adam was not created at the beginning but at the end of the creation period (on the sixth day), no matter how long or short the days were.
Second, the Greek word for “create” (ktisis) can and sometimes does mean “institution” or “ordinance” (cf. 1 Peter 2:13). Since Jesus is speaking of the institution of marriage in Mark 10:6, it could mean “from the beginning of the institution of marriage.”
Third, and finally, even if Mark 10:6 is speaking of the original creation events, it does not mean there could not have been a long period of time involved in those creative events.
Thus concludes an introduction to some of the most popular young earth arguments and responses to them. In future posts, we will look at further lines of evidence from the old earth creation side. There is much more to be said about the old earth view, and considering that this view is rarely heard within the evangelical community, we should study them here.
What is the Purpose of Prayer?
Post Author: Bill Pratt
It is not to get what we want, but what God wants.
It is not to convince God to change his mind, but for him to change our minds.
It is not to have our will done in heaven, but for God to have his will done on earth.
Prayer is the means by which we praise God for who he is, ask him for forgiveness, and thank him for everything he’s given us.
We are to bring all of our concerns to him, but we know that what we want is not always best for us or for anyone else. That’s why Jesus said, “Not my will, but yours,” when he was praying to the Father.
As my wife likes to say, God is not a genie in a bottle. He doesn’t operate by our commands. He has a long-term plan for the earth and all its inhabitants.
When we pray, we’re not trying to change his plans. He is changing ours.
What is the Meaning of the Word “Day” in Genesis? Part 4
Post Author: Bill Pratt
In this series of posts, we are looking at the meaning of the Hebrew word yom as it is used in the first chapter of Genesis. Does yom refer to a 24-hour day or to a long period of time?
Today we will review two more arguments that young earth creationists make and the responses to these arguments by old earth creationists. Again, we will use material from Norman Geisler’s systematic theology, volume 2.
Young earth creationists argue that plants and animals must exist at the same time because they rely on each other for survival.
Plants were created on the third day (1:11–13), and animals were not created until later (1:20–23). There is a symbiotic relation between plants and animals, one depending on the other for its life. For example, plants give off oxygen and take in carbon dioxide, and animals do the reverse. Therefore, plants and animals must have been created closely together, not separated by long periods of time.
This is more of a scientific argument than a biblical argument, but it is still worth reviewing in this series. How would old earth creationists respond to this argument? Can plants live without animals for a long period of time?
Some plants and animals are interdependent, but not all. Genesis does not mention all the plants and animals, but only some. If the “days” are six successive periods, then those forms of plant and animal life that need each other could have been created together. In fact, the basic order of events is the order of dependence. For instance, many plants and animals can exist without humans (and they were created first), but humans (who were created on the sixth day) cannot exist without certain plants and animals. . . . In any event, the argument from the symbiotic relation of plants and animals does not prove that the six “days” of Genesis 1 must be only 144 hours in duration.
Another common argument made by young earth creationists is that there was no death before Adam. I, myself, have heard this argument many times used by friends of mine. Here is how it works:
According to the old-earth position, there was death before Adam. Nevertheless, the Bible declares that death came only after Adam, as a result of his sin: “Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12; cf. 8:20–22).
But does the Bible really say this? I asked one commenter, who posted on our blog, this very question, but I never received a response. Here is why:
There are several problems with this argument.
First, Romans 5:12 does not say all animals die because of Adam’s sin, but only that “all men” die as a consequence.
Second, Romans 8 does not say that animal death results from Adam’s sin, but only that the “creation was subjected to frustration” as a result of it (v. 20).
Third, if Adam ate anything—and he had to eat in order to live—then at least plants had to die before he sinned.
Fourth, and finally, the fossil evidence indicates animal death before human death, since people are found only on the top (later) strata while animals are found in lower (earlier) strata.
The Bible does not, in fact, say that there was no death before Adam’s sin. This argument just does not work.
In our next post, we will look at the final two young earth arguments.
Who Made God?
Post Author: Bill Pratt
Nobody. Christians hold that God has always existed and will always exist and is, therefore, uncaused. Only things that begin to exist need a cause, and God never began to exist, so God needs no cause. Nobody and no thing made God.
Something or someone had to have always existed, or else everything that exists now would have ultimately come from nothing. Nothing causes nothing, so the fact that something exists today means that something or someone must have always existed. Think about it.
An infinite regress of causes going backward in time not only doesn’t solve the problem, it makes the problem infinitely worse! You are just adding an infinite number of effects that need a cause.
You have to stop somewhere with causation. Atheists often claim that the universe needs no cause, but if it began to exist, then it does need a cause. The atheist may respond that the universe never began to exist, and therefore does not need a cause. But this is a statement of faith.
Ultimately, you either go with God or matter, personality or impersonality, rationality or non-rationality, intelligence or non-intelligence, as the source of everything.
What you decide says a lot about you.
What is the Meaning of the Word “Day” in Genesis? Part 3
Post Author: Bill Pratt
Today we continue looking at arguments for a 24-hour view of the “days” in Genesis and arguments for a longer period of time. Again, we will be using Norm Geisler’s treatment of the issue.
A seemingly persuasive argument for the 24-hour view is the comparison in Exodus 20:11 of the six-day work week to the six “days” of creation. Here is the argument briefly stated:
According to the law of Moses (Ex. 20:11), the Jewish workweek (Sunday through Friday) was to be followed by a day of rest on Saturday, just as God had done in His “six-day week” of creation. The Jewish workweek refers to six successive twenty-four-hour-days. This being the case, it seems that the creation week, like the workweek, was only 144 hours long.
Dr. Geisler addresses this argument in the following way:
It is true that the creation week is compared with a workweek (Ex. 20:11); however, it is not uncommon in the Old Testament to make unit-to-unit comparisons rather than minute-for-minute ones. For example, God appointed forty years of wandering for forty days of disobedience (Num. 14:34). And, in Daniel 9, 490 days equals 490 years (cf. 9:24–27). What is more, we know the seventh day is more than twenty-four hours, since according to Hebrews 4 the seventh day is still going on. Genesis says that “on the seventh day [God] rested” (Gen. 2:2), but Hebrews informs us that God is still in that Sabbath rest into which He entered after He created: “There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his” (Heb. 4:10).
The next argument for 24-hour “days” in Genesis has to do with the creation of light on the fourth day.
Young-earthers claim that according to Genesis 1, light was not made until the fourth day (v. 14), but there was life on the third day (v. 1:11–13). However, life on earth cannot exist for millions (or even thousands) of years without light; thus, the “days” must not have been long periods of time.
As Dr. Geisler points out, there are several possible responses to this argument:
Light was not created on the fourth day, as defenders of the solar day argue; rather, it was made on the very first day when God said, “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3). As to why there was light on the first day when the sun did not appear until the fourth day, there are various possibilities. Some scholars have noted a parallelism between the first three days (light, water, and land—all empty) and the second three days (light, water, and land—all filled with bodies). This may indicate a parallelism in which the first and fourth days cover the same period, in which case the sun existed from the beginning.
Others have pointed out that while the sun was created on the first day, it did not appear until the fourth day. Perhaps this was due to a vapor cloud that allowed light through, but not the distinct shape of the heavenly bodies from which the light emanated.
An additional point can be made about the fourth day. According to young-earth creationists, the sun was not created until the fourth day, but there could be no 24-hour solar days for the first three “days” of Genesis without the sun. After all, the sun is what gives the earth a 24-hour cycle. Without the sun, it seems nonsensical to call the first three “days” solar days.
As we look at each of the arguments for 24-hour “days” in Genesis, they may seem convincing at first. After reading the responses to these arguments, they are not as persuasive. As I said in an earlier post, interpreting these verses in Genesis is not easy, but we should still keep trying to find the truth, even if it is difficult. There are still a few more common arguments made by young-earth creationists that we need to review. We will do that next.
What Happened to the Blog Theme?
After being badgered by my wife and some blog readers, I finally decided on a new theme for the blog. I wanted to stick with a 2-column theme, because I don’t like the look of blogs that are cluttered with a lot of stuff. Other people like a lot of stuff on their blog site, but I don’t! 🙂
Anyway, I also wanted a theme with a larger font size for our readers who don’t want to squint at the screen (like me). Let me know what you think of the new theme. If you hate or like it, I want to know. I can always change it to something else….I already miss the Christmas theme 🙁
Does the Bible Teach That There Are Many Ways to Eternal Life?
I have written on this topic before, but it deserves more ink. Sometimes another person says something so well, that I just need to get out of the way and direct our readers to them. Greg Koukl, of Stand to Reason, does a fantastic job addressing several aspects of this question in a recent publication. It’s a few pages long, but I plead with you to read it, as there is a lot of truth packed into it.
Bottom line: The New Testament only teaches that Jesus is the path to salvation. That alone should drive our evangelism. There may be other ways to heaven, but the Bible doesn’t go there. Instead of guessing what might be, let’s go with what we know.
If you care to, let me know what you think of what Koukl says.